Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Rick Berg on Health Care

 


Give Americans an option to choose a better Medicare policy

Heitkamp said Republicans' so-called "premium support" proposal, which would provide a voucher for beneficiaries under age 55 to shop around for health coverage, would create "real problems in making sure that that system is solvent" if only the elderly who are the sickest remain on traditional Medicare. She said her solutions for keeping Medicare solvent include negotiating prescription drug prices, reducing fraud and waste and promoting wellness.

Berg championed the proposal as giving Americans an option to choose a better policy, but he focused most of his comments on the effects of the Affordable Care Act. He challenged Heitkamp's on how long it would take Medicare to go bankrupt under Obamacare and said the law would raid Medicare of $716 billion and "people are going to quit taking Medicare patients."

"It cuts money from hospitals and physicians in North Dakota. It cuts hospice. These are real cuts," Berg said.

Source: Fargo-Moorhead Forum on 2012 N.D. Senate debate , Oct 15, 2012

Repeal ObamaCare; it creates a cloud of uncertainty

Asked how they would address Obamacare, Berg said he would repeal the law, calling it "the one clear distinction in this race." He said his wife, a physician, said it would put the government between her and her patients, and he referred to recent reports that Olive Garden and Red Lobster are putting more workers on part-time status to see if it will limit costs from Obamacare. "This bill creates a cloud of uncertainty, and it's hurting our whole economy," Berg said.

Heitkamp, whose husband is a family doctor, said she supports keeping the act's provision for people with preexisting conditions and retaining the "frontier states" amendment, which outgoing U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has said would address inequities in Medicare funding to states and boost payments to North Dakota hospitals and doctors more than $650 million over 10 years. Heitkamp said there is good and bad in the act, and "there is absolutely no reason not to amend the law as it currently exists."

Source: Fargo-Moorhead Forum on 2012 N.D. Senate debate , Oct 15, 2012

Replace ObamaCare piecemeal; it hurts middle America

Heitkamp pointed out that the North Dakota Legislature had worked on creating a state health care exchange, a central piece of the federal health care law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. "It went to the Legislature, and at the last minute it was voted down. There was no rhyme or reason to it," Heitkamp said.

During last November's special session the House voted 64-30 against the exchange. Heitkamp went on to say that North Dakota should have a health care exchange, federal law or not.

Berg said the law needs to be repealed and replaced piecemeal. He said the law's mandate to purchase insurance will hurt businesses and families. "They hit middle America hard," Berg said. He pointed to the announcement earlier in the week that Olive Garden & Red Lobster will be moving away from hiring full-time employees to keep costs down under the law. The law states that businesses with 50 or more employees can be subject to fines if full-time workers aren't covered.

Source: Bismarck Tribune on 2012 N.D. Senate debates , Oct 12, 2012

ObamaCare is an expensive government takeover

The candidates also discussed healthcare. Berg once again stressed the need to repeal the President`s healthcare law, which he says is an expensive government takeover that cuts Medicare.

Heitkamp said changes are needed with the law when it comes to the mandate and the tax on health insurance. But that it should not be repealed. She says doing so would get rid of the frontier states amendment, which she says would be impossible to get back.

Source: KFYR-TV-5 Bismarck on 2012 N.D. Senate debates , Oct 11, 2012

ObamaCare takes power away from our elected officials

Q: Where do you stand regarding Critical Access Hospitals and the 1% federal reimbursement plan that they receive, especially for rural hospitals like some of the ones here in North Dakota?

Berg: "I'm extremely supportive of it. Rural health care is key. The challenge in Washington is that they assume every city has a million people in it. Also, I worry about the president's health care bill, which implements an appointed board of officials to make recommendations about reimbursement levels. With that, we would end up going down a trail of power being taken out of the hands of our elected officials."

Heitkamp: "The vast majority of North Dakota's hospitals--36 of the 52 certified hospitals--are Critical Access Hospitals. The facilities are the lynchpin to North Dakota's health care system. The president has proposed cutting funding for Critical Access Hospitals and that's something I think he's wrong about."

Source: The Jamestown Sun joint 2012 N.D. Senate Debate interviews , Apr 17, 2012

Advocates repeal of Obama's healthcare because too costly

Berg is in favor of repealing President Obama's 2010 health-care overhaul, or repealing parts of the law. "There is nothing in this bill that's going to lower the cost of health care," Berg told a local radio show in May 2010.
Source: Washington Post, "Post Politics" , Mar 2, 2012

Tort reform & competition instead of nationalized healthcare

Healthcare is not something that the government can effectively takeover. The Obama-Pomeroy nationalized healthcare bill does nothing to lower our costs, but it does add another $569.2 billion in tax increases and cuts $523 billion from Medicare.

Interstate insurance competition, regulatory reform, streamlining the system to eliminate waste, increased fraud enforcement, elimination of defensive medicine, and tort reform must all be part of the solution.

Source: 2010 House campaign website, bergforcongress.com, "Issues" , Nov 2, 2010

Voted YES on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts.

Proponent's Arguments for voting Yes:

[Sen. DeMint, R-SC]: The Democrats have Medicare on a course of bankruptcy. Republicans are trying to save Medicare & make sure there are options for seniors in the future. Medicare will not be there 5 or 10 years from now. Doctors will not see Medicare patients at the rate [Congress will] pay.

[Sen. Ayotte, R-NH]: We have 3 choices when it comes to addressing rising health care costs in Medicare. We can do nothing & watch the program go bankrupt in 2024. We can go forward with the President's proposal to ration care through an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats. Or we can show real leadership & strengthen the program to make it solvent for current beneficiaries, and allow future beneficiaries to make choices.

Opponent's Arguments for voting No:

[Sen. Conrad, D-ND]: In the House Republican budget plan, the first thing they do is cut $4 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the wealthiest among us, they give them an additional $1 trillion in tax reductions. To offset these massive new tax cuts, they have decided to shred the social safety net. They have decided to shred Medicare. They have decided to shred program after program so they can give more tax cuts to those who are the wealthiest among us.

[Sen. Merkley, D-TK]: The Republicans chose to end Medicare as we know it. The Republican plan reopens the doughnut hole. That is the hole into which seniors fall when, after they have some assistance with the first drugs they need, they get no assistance until they reach a catastrophic level. It is in that hole that seniors have had their finances devastated. We fixed it. Republicans want to unfix it and throw seniors back into the abyss. Then, instead of guaranteeing Medicare coverage for a fixed set of benefits for every senior--as Medicare does now--the Republican plan gives seniors a coupon and says: Good luck. Go buy your insurance. If the insurance goes up, too bad.

Reference: Ryan Budget Plan; Bill HCR34&SCR21 ; vote number 11-HV277 on Apr 15, 2011

Voted YES on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to repeal provisions establishing and appropriating funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund (a Fund to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs). Rescinds any unobligated balanced appropriated to such Fund.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Pitts, R-PA]: Section 4002 of PPACA establishes a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which my bill, H.R. 1217, would repeal. The PPACA section authorizes the appropriation of and appropriates to the fund from the Treasury the following amounts:

We have created a slush fund from which the Secretary of HHS can spend without any congressional oversight or approval. I would suggest to my colleagues that, if you wanted more funding to go towards smoking cessation or to any other program, the health care law should have contained an explicit authorization. By eliminating this fund, we are not cutting any specific program. This is about reclaiming our oversight role of how Federal tax dollars should be used.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill represents the Republicans' newest line of attack to disrupt, dismantle, and to ultimately destroy the Affordable Care Act. For many years, Republicans have joined with Democrats in supporting programs to prevent disease, to promote health and, in turn, to cut health care costs. But today, the House will vote to end funding for the first and only Federal program with dedicated, ongoing resources designed to make us a healthier Nation.

Reference: To repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund; Bill H.1217 ; vote number 11-HV264 on Apr 13, 2011

Opposes government-run healthcare.

Berg opposes the CC survey question on government-run healthcare

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Federal government run health care system"

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q5 on Aug 11, 2010

Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law.

Berg co-sponsored Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act.

Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act's enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act's health care provisions.

Source: H.R.2 11-HR002 on Jan 5, 2011

Other candidates on Health Care: Rick Berg on other issues:
ND Gubernatorial:
Jack Dalrymple
ND Senatorial:
Duane Sand
Heidi Heitkamp
John Hoeven
Kent Conrad

ND politicians

Retiring as of Jan. 2013:
AZ:Kyl(R)
CT:Lieberman(D)
HI:Akaka(D)
ME:Snowe(R)
ND:Conrad(D)
NE:Nelson(D)
NM:Bingaman(D)
TX:Hutchison(R)
VA:Webb(D)
WI:Kohl(D)


Senate elections Nov. 2012:
AZ:Flake(R) vs.Carmona(D)
CA:Feinstein(D) vs.Emken(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) vs.Taitz(R)
CT:McMahon(R) vs.Murphy(D) vs.Bysiewicz(D) vs.Shays(R)
DE:Carper(D) vs.Wade(R)
FL:Nelson(D) vs.Mack(R) vs.LeMieux(R)
HI:Hirono(D) vs.Case(D) vs.Lingle(R) vs.Pirkowski(R)
IN:Lugar(R) vs.Mourdock(R) vs.Donnelly(D)
MA:Brown(R) vs.Warren(D)
MD:Cardin(D) vs.Bongino(R)
ME:King(I) vs.Dill(D) vs.Summers(R)
MI:Stabenow(D) vs.Hoekstra(R) vs.Boman(L)
MN:Klobuchar(D) vs.Bills(R)
MO:McCaskill(D) vs.Akin(R)
MS:Wicker(R) vs.Gore(D)
MT:Tester(D) vs.Rehberg(R)

ND:Heitkamp(D) vs.Berg(R)
NE:Kerrey(D) vs.Fischer(R)
NJ:Menendez(D) vs.Kyrillos(R) vs.Diakos(I)
NM:Heinrich(D) vs.Wilson(R)
NV:Heller(R) vs.Berkley(D)
NY:Gillibrand(D) vs.Long(R) vs.Noren(I) vs.Clark(G)
OH:Brown(D) vs.Mandel(R)
PA:Casey(D) vs.Smith(R)
RI:Whitehouse(D) vs.Hinckley(R)
TN:Corker(R) vs.Clayton(D)
TX:Cruz(R) vs.Sadler(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.Dewhurst(R)
UT:Hatch(R) vs.Howell(D)
VA:Kaine(D) vs.Allen(R)
VT:Sanders(I) vs.MacGovern(R)
WA:Cantwell(D) vs.Baumgartner(R)
WI:Thompson(R) vs.Baldwin(D)
WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R)
WY:Barrasso(R) vs.Chesnut(D)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings

Contact info:
Campaign website:
www.bergfornorthdakota.com
House Contact
Mailing Address:
Office 323 CHOB, Wash., DC 20515
Phone number:
202-225-2611
Web contact in lieu of EMail

Page last updated: Oct 17, 2012